Well, let's see. When I'm driving through a thunderstorm or a blizzard, I can't see a thing on the
road ahead of me, but I can still listen to the radio just fine. So I'd say it's the radio telescope.
No. The gain of the antenna ... which translates directly into angular resolution ... depends on the wavelength (frequency) of operation.The 2.5 meter optical parabolic reflector (telescope) on Mt. Wilson is a titan. 2.5 meter parabolic radio antennas are routinely used in intercity microwave communication but would be quite useless for serious radio-astronomy, as they are such shrimps at radio wavelengths.
Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes use a folded optical design, making them more compact and versatile for astrophotography. Dobsonian telescopes have a simpler design with a larger aperture, providing better views of faint objects. If you prioritize portability and versatility, go for a Schmidt-Cassegrain. If you want better views of celestial objects, a Dobsonian might be more suitable.
An "optical" telescope would naturally collect light from optical wavelengths, meaning visible light from ~400-800nm.
This may depend on what the lenses are to be used for. Eyeglasses can be fixed at places like Sears Optical. This can also be in reference to telescopes in which case one would have to go to the manufacturer.
Reflecting telescopes are typically more cost-effective to build for larger apertures compared to refracting telescopes due to simpler construction and fewer optical components. Reflecting telescopes do not suffer from chromatic aberration like refracting telescopes, leading to sharper images with better color accuracy. Reflecting telescopes can also be made with larger apertures, allowing for better light-gathering capability and higher resolution for astronomical observations.
As Necessity is the Mother of Invention then someone would need to invent a thing which works like a telescope but may go by a different name and might be better than any telescopes we have
Most modern telescopes are reflecting telescopes because reflecting telescopes are generally more cost-effective and easier to build at larger sizes compared to refracting telescopes. Reflecting telescopes also suffer less from chromatic aberration and can have a simpler design with fewer optical elements.
The optical cable would be the best choice.
No. The Hubble Space Telescope is an optical telescope of the reflective type. A 'non optical' telescope would be one that works on different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum below or above the optical wavelengths.
X-ray telescopes use grazing incidence mirrors to reflect and focus high-energy X-rays, which would be unable to be focused using traditional optical lenses. This design allows for better resolution and sensitivity for observing celestial objects that emit X-rays.
Optical measures visible light, Radio measures electromagnetic radiation in that part of the spectrum corresponding to radio waves. Same with X-ray telescopes and x-rays. Optical is the kind you look through.
a moon based telescope would be better because on the moon there is no wind nor weather so it would be perfect to capture images without worrying about any obstacles.on earth we worry about clouds winds and altitude etc etc.to sum it all up then....... the reason moon-based telescopes are easier to see through is because the moon doesn't have as much obstructions like weather, clouds, pollution, weather, pretty much nuthin.